When an idea to “save the planet” begins with a nuclear explosion, you know there must have been a bug somewhere. Yet, this is seriously what Andy Haverly, a young American doctoral student in quantum computing, suggested: triggering a massive atomic detonation at the bottom of the ocean to combat climate change. Yes, really.
And while this proposal, as crazy as it is original, is now being criticized from all sides, it also reflects a state of increasingly palpable despair among some scientists in the face of global climate inaction.
Climate chaos unravels, science grows impatient
Climate disruption is an increasingly violent reality: heatwaves, droughts, natural disasters, rising sea levels… If nothing is done, experts predict hundreds of millions of climate refugees, colossal economic losses, and irreversible ecological damage by the end of the century.
Faced with this urgency, many researchers are working on solutions called negative emissions technologies: they aim to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, the primary greenhouse gas. Some known approaches include planting trees, capturing carbon at the industrial source, using carbon-trapping concrete, or spreading biochar on soils.
But another approach that is gaining attention is the accelerated weathering of rocks, which involves grinding certain volcanic rocks (like basalt) so that they naturally absorb CO2 when in contact with water and air. Simple on paper, but very complex on a large scale.
A radical plan: pulverizing rock mountains… with a nuclear bomb
This is where Haverly’s idea comes in. In a preprint published on the arXiv site (not peer-reviewed), he proposes to solve the logistical problem of this method… with an underwater nuclear explosion of unprecedented power: 81 gigatonnes, more than 1,600 times the Tsar Bomba, the largest bomb ever tested.
The goal? To pulverize over 3,800 billion tons of basalt located beneath the ocean floor, in a remote area of the Southern Ocean. Once ground into dust, these rocks would chemically react with CO2, permanently trapping it. And since the bomb would be buried over 3 km under the seabed, he hopes the explosion would be “contained” and the nuclear fallout would be “limited.”
An idea far from consequence-free
Naturally, the idea is highly risky, technologically uncertain, and widely criticized.
First, it should be noted that the author is neither a climatologist, geologist, nor nuclear engineer. He does not explain how a bomb of this size could be manufactured, transported, and installed at such a depth.
Moreover, the environmental consequences could be potentially catastrophic: lasting radiation, disruption of marine ecosystems, risks for marine ecosystems, and of course, the dispersion of radioactive materials on a planetary scale.
Even Haverly acknowledges that the explosion “would lead to long-term human losses,” but he downplays it: it would be “a drop in the ocean” compared to the consequences of coal-fired power plants. A logic of “lesser evil” that convinces neither experts nor the public opinion.
The real problem: the illusion of not changing anything
If this idea has caused such a stir, it is because it crystallizes a worrying dilemma: should we resort to extreme solutions to avoid questioning our ways of life? Haverly proposes a way to “clean up” carbon without anyone having to consume less, fly less, or touch the profits of fossil fuel industries.
In short: and what if we solved the problem without changing anything?
This techno-savior fantasy is enticing but dangerous. Because it risks further delaying concrete action on the root causes of the problem. And in the case of an underwater nuclear explosion, the remedy could prove much worse than the malady.
A crazy idea… that speaks volumes about our times
In itself, Haverly’s proposal is unlikely to see the light of day. It is technically unrealistic, morally questionable, and rejected by the majority of experts. But the simple fact that it exists, that it is debated, and that some see it as a solution, shows how the climate crisis is pushing some brilliant minds to their most extreme limits.
It’s no longer just the planet overheating. It’s also our collective imagination, facing a future that we no longer know how to cool down.
